Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Aquatic - BC Hydro

Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan 

Aquatic Productivity Monitoring 

Reference:CLAMON#1 

Clayton Falls Water Use Planning Aquatic Productivity 

Monitoring Program 

Study Period: 10 September 2005 – 26 February 2006 (Year 1) 

Kynoch Resources 

December 2006

Water License Requirements 

Clayton Creek 

Water Licence Requirement Reporting 

Ref Study:CLA#1 

Study Period: Sept. 10, 2005 – Feb. 26, 2006 

Report Date: Dec. 31, 2006 

Kynoch Resources

Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program – Year 1, 2005 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ii 

LIST OF TABLES ii 

1. INTRODUCTION 1 

1.1 Proposed Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring (Background) 1 

1.2 Implementing Proposed Aquatic Productivity Monitoring 2 

2. METHODS 3 

2.1 Site Selection 3 

2.2 Fish Collection 3 

2.2.1 Fish Sampling 4 

2.3 Benthic invertebrate Collection 4 

2.4 Snorkel Observations 5 

3. RESULTS 6 

3.1 Fish Collection Results 6 

3.1.1 Site Data 6 

3.1.2 Fish Collection 8 

Supplementary Snorkelling 9 

3.2 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling 9 

Benthic Sample Collection Results (November 15, 2005) 10 

Benthic Sample Collection Results (February 26, 2006) 10 

Invertebrate Taxonomy Results (February 26, 2006) 11 

4. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS 13 

4.1 Fish Habitat 13 

4.2 Invertebrate Sampling 13 

4.3 Recommendations 13 

LITERATURE SOURCES 15 


i



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Clayton Creek Stream Reaches & Major Features 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Periodicity of key life stages of salmonids in Clayton Creek. 

Table 2: Sample Site Habitat Description Clayton Creek Reach 2 (2005) 

Table 3: Sample Site Habitat Description Clayton Creek Reach 3 (2005) 

Table 4: Fish Collection Data, Site CF 1 

Table 5: Fish Collection Data, Site CF 2 

Table 6: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in Samples from Clayton Creek, February 26, 2006, 

including life stages. 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 1: Fish collection data (.xls digital file). 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment 1: Power Point Presentation of Benthic Invertebrates. Provided by M. Wigle. 

ii


1. INTRODUCTION 

The Clayton Falls Water Use Planning process (BC Hydro July 2003) was undertaken between 

September 2002 and April 2003, during which period stakeholders collaborated to identify key effects of 

the operations of BC Hydro’s Clayton Falls Project. The consultative process followed steps outlined in 

the provincial government’s Water Use Plan Guidelines (Province of BC Government, 1998). The 

Clayton Falls Water Use Plan Consultative Committee consisted of six representatives representing the 

interests of fish, wildlife, First Nations’ traditional use and hydroelectric power. Representatives included 

BC Hydro, provincial and federal agencies, Nuxalk Nation, community fisheries organizations and 

industry. Refer to the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan – Consultative Committee Report (BC Hydro, July 

2003) for more information on committee members and representation. 

The Clayton Falls hydroelectric project is not part of BC Hydro’s integrated generation system. The 

facility is located in the Bella Coola Valley on Clayton Creek, approximately 4 km west of the town site 

of Bella Coola. The hydroelectric project consists of a run-of-river facility including: a concrete gravity 

dam; headpond (Clayton Creek); overflow spillway; sluiceway; power intake; penstock; and, 

powerhouse. The powerhouse is located to the east of Clayton Creek, resulting in creation of a 30 m 

tailrace, which rejoins Clayton Creek 51 m downstream from the base of Clayton Falls. This section of 

Clayton Creek (Reach 2; from the confluence of the tailrace channel to the base of the falls) was the 

subject of consultation regarding potential low flow events during winter headpond drawdowns, which 

may potentially have reduced flow in Reach 2 below suitable fish habitat levels. 

Reach 1 of Clayton Creek is described as the stream section extending from the high tide level of North 

Bentinck Arm to the confluence of the tailrace channel with Clayton Creek. Reach 1 is approximately 

100 m long and is accessible to anadromous fish. Reach 2 is upstream of the confluence of the tailrace 

channel and extends 51 m to the base of Clayton Falls, all of which is accessible to anadromous fish. 

Reach 3 is described as all stream sections upstream of Clayton Falls. Reach 3 is not accessible to 

anadromous fish as the waterfall presents a naturally impassable barrier. Figure 1 shows the location of 

Clayton Creek’s major features. Photos 1 and 2 show the waterfall, Reach 2 and the tailrace channel as 

described. 

1.1 Proposed Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring (Background) 

As stated in the Consultative Committee Report, Clayton Falls Water Use Plan (2003) , ‘The 

Clayton Falls Consultative Committee identified the lack of a guaranteed continuous flow in 

mainstem channel between the falls and the confluence of the tailrace channel [Reach 2] as an 

important issue to be addressed by the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan’. It was determined that 

during winter flow regimes (December through March) daily inflows to the headpond were less 

than maximum turbine discharge capacity, potentially resulting in greatly reduced flow to Reach 

2 (below Clayton Falls). The WUP determined effective Performance Measures (PMs) should 

be developed to quantify the impacts of various alternatives (i.e., flow regimes) being 

considered by the Consultative Committee. The Committee agreed that optimal salmonid 

rearing flow for Clayton Creek would likely be between approximately 0.7 m 3 /s and 1.25 m 3 /s. It 

was estimated during the WUP process that winter flows to Reach 2 of Clayton Creek consisted 

of periodic spilling and at times were limited to approximately 0.05 m 3 /s of inflow and dam 

leakage . 


1

Reach 1 

Reach 2 

Site Cf2 

Reach 3 

Site Cf1 

Reach 3 

Waterfall 

Figure 1: Clayton Creek Stream Reaches & Major Features (BC Hydro, 2003).


Further stated in the WUP, effective habitat is that which remains stable, productive and/or 

viable for the duration of a species life history. From a water use planning perspective, such 

habitats are considered variable to flow changes. There are different requirements that define 

effectiveness of habitat depending on the species and life history using the habitat. As Clayton 

Creek Facility is a run-of the-river facility, BC Hydro is less able to control high flows and is 

therefore more concerned with low flow events, particularly during winter months (November 

through March) when there is control over inflows, and during which period salmonids require 

effective habitat for over wintering. 

Table 1 shows periodicity of key life stages of salmonids in Clayton Creek (BC Hydro, 2003). 

Table 1. Periodicity of key life stages of salmonids in Clayton Creek. 

Spawning 

Pink Salmon 

Incubation 

Outmigration 

Spawning 

Chum Salmon 

Incubation 

Outmigration 

Coho Salmon Foraging 

Dolly Varden Foraging 

Rainbow Foraging 

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

1.2 Implementing Proposed Aquatic Productivity Monitoring 

In September 2005 Kynoch Resources began a four-year period of aquatic monitoring to 

determine low flow effects within Reach 2 of Clayton Creek. The initial program was designed 

to collect baseline fish and invertebrate population structure and distribution data for Reach 2 of 

Clayton Creek (the 51 m section of stream below the waterfall). This was to be followed by 

monitoring with the minimum treatment flow to demonstrate the benefits of providing a 

continuous year-round flow to the mainstem channel. Results of this monitoring were expected 

to provide the rationale for continuing or increasing the currently agreed minimum flow above 

zero release. 

The primary hypothesis to be tested was: determine if an increase of 0.05 m 3 /s through dam 

releases combined with the estimated 0.05 m 3 /s natural stream inflow and dam leakage 

(resulting in a total combined minimum discharge of 0.10 m 3 /s) will alter or restore the 

productive capacity of the lower Clayton Falls Creek (BC Hydro, 2003). 

This was to be achieved through implementation of an aquatic productivity monitoring program 

consisting of three main components to be assessed (as described in the Terms of Reference, 

BC Hydro, 2005), including: 

1. Physical habitat and site selection; 

2. Fish species composition and abundance monitoring; and, 

3. Benthic invertebrate composition and abundance monitoring. 

An additional stream snorkelling component was added during 2005 implementation to 

supplement fish collection information. 


2


2. METHODS 

The Aquatic Productivity monitoring program required selection of two sample sites for stream, fish and 

invertebrate data collection. One site was selected in Reaches 2 (downstream of falls) and another in 

reach 3 (upstream of falls). Snorkeling was also completed at each of these sites during 2005 sampling. 

2.1 Site Selection 

Sample site selection was based on methods devised my MOE (Ptolemy et al. 2006) for similar 

fry sampling in the Bella Coola Watershed, with each site area measuring near 100m 2 . A 

minimum area of 100m 2 was sought where practical, to standardize results with other studies in 

the region (e.g., Ptolemy et al., 2006). Fish density was expressed in fish number per 100 m 2 or 

fish per unit (FPU). Sites were fully (reach 2) or partially (reach 3) enclosed. Sites offering 

natural physical barriers such as mid-channel boulders were preferred since upstreamdownstream 

barrier nets were easier to install, more readily isolating the sample site. Based on 

methods described by Ptolemy et al., 2006, anticipated salmonid fry (e.g., Dolly Varden- 

Salvelinus malma, and coho- Oncorhynchus kisutch juveniles) were typically bounded by high 

velocities in mid stream sections; barrier nets extended well into the mid-stream area of the 

channel for the partially enclosed site (Photo 3). 

Physical site attributes and habitat types were recorded during site layout and included: habitat 

classification (riffle, rapid, cascade, glide, run, or pool) at each site; descriptions of depthvelocity 

profile at 0.25-0.5 m intervals perpendicular to flow (with shorter intervals over high 

velocity gradients); riparian vegetation; channel confinement; bed material composition; 

dominant particle size (Dmax and D90 cm); large woody debris (LWD) content; substrate 

embeddedness; site length; site wetted width; estimated available cover; and, maximum depth. 

2.2 Fish Collection 

Methods described by Ptolemy (pers. com, 2005 and Ptolemy et al. 2006), were used for 

sample site set up and sampling. Areas providing safe wading in the swift stream current (e.g., 

Clayton Falls WUP Aquatic Productivity Monitoring Program Year 1, 2005 

Photo 1:Clayton Creek waterfall and Reach 2 (September 2005). 

Photo 2: Tailrace stream section. 

Kynoch Resources


from the shore-based unit. These proven methods facilitated fast, safe and efficient capture of 

fish species from cobble-boulder interstitial spaces. 

Fish were captured by the anode pole operator or two support samplers using 19 cm diameter 

nets. This diameter was considered large enough to capture smolt-sized fish of 17 cm (Ptolemy 

et al. 2006). The anode operator periodically over turned rocks to hand-recover fish that had 

drifted into difficult interstitial spaces. 

Following methods described by Ptolemy et al. (2006), electrofishing at each site was initiated 

at the downstream net, and consisted of a thorough habitat search with the electrofisher anode 

in an upstream direction, followed by a systematic sweep back towards the downstream net. To 

avoid chasing larger juveniles from the site electrofishing proceeded from the fast water forming 

the offshore boundary towards the shore (Photo 4). Each “catch” (c1, c2, c3, etc.) effort 

involved multiple passes and the same search pattern was replicated in each catch effort. This 

type of three-sided sample method was described by Ptolemy et al. (2006) as potentially 

offsetting measurement error caused by exceptions to total site enclosure through greater 

sampling efficiency afforded by shore-based electrofishing. 

2.2.1 Fish Sampling 

Salmonids captured during electrofishing were anaesthetized, identified as to species, 

measured to the nearest mm (fork length, FL), weighed, and released alive back into the site 

following the final completion of sampling. A portion of the coho parr captured from Reach 2 

were also sampled for scales, which were taken from the sides of fish approximately 2-4 scale 

rows above the lateral line and between the back of the dorsal fin and the insertion of the anal 

fin. Scale samples were collected and retained by Ministry of Environment personnel assisting 

with the project (R. Ptolemy). Numbers of non-salmonid fish were recorded to Genus (e.g., 

Cottus sp.). with no other data collected from those specimens. 

2.3 Benthic invertebrate Collection 

Benthic invertebrates were to be collected over a six to ten week period representative of 

predicted winter low flow conditions (e.g., ~0.05 m 3 /s). Twelve benthic invertebrate baskets, 

supplied by BC Hydro, were filled with clean cobble and placed in the stream substrate of 

Reaches 2 and 3 to monitor benthic invertebrate colonization (six baskets at Reach 2 and six at 

Reach 3). 

In 2005 difficulties were experienced in placing these sample baskets in the stream channel. It 

was noted that low flow conditions were not observed to the extent anticipated in fall-winter of 

2005. Although accurate discharge data were not available for the sample periods (described in 

Results, Section 3.0 below), it appeared discharge typically well exceed 0.05 m 3 /s and benthic 

invertebrate sample baskets could not effectively be placed in the stream channel in a 

representative location to accurately collect information or data related to expected low flow 

periods. 

In addition to placement discharge/timing issues, it was further determined baskets were 

ultimately of inappropriate shape and dimension for effective colonization (baskets measured 

30 cm x 30 cm x 10 cm), limiting the size and amount of substrate material that could effectively 

be placed in the sample basket, as well as depth they could effectively be placed within the 

predominantly large boulder natural stream substrate. Subsequently, benthic invertebrate 


4


Photo3: Containment net in Reach 3 of Clayton Creek. 

Photo 4: Electrofishing methods. 

Kynoch Resources


Photo 5: Benthic invertebrate sample baskets 

Photo 6: Basket placement below waterfall. 

Kynoch Resources


sampling methods were modified as described in the results section below. Photos 5 and 6 

show basket dimensions and placement techniques attempted in 2005. 

Two basket placement periods were attempted during the 2005 monitoring period (September 

to November 2005 and January to February 2006). Both periods experienced high water events 

(further described below), resulting in basket loss; however, basket revival was attempted after 

each period, resulting in a certain level of sample collection. During basket collection the 

sample basket and contained substrate were removed from the stream and placed immediately 

into an awaiting 200µ mesh bag, which was positioned downstream to collect any potential 

drifting material and/or specimens. Invertebrate specimens were subsequently removed from 

substrate material, basket surfaces, and the mesh bag with hand brushes and water droppers. 

Photo 7 shows basket retrieval techniques. Invertebrates were preserved in 70% isopropyl 

alcohol for taxonomic identification. 

Owing to difficulties in benthic invertebrate collection taxonomic identification was only 

completed for one site, with remaining samples having been archived. A power Point 

Presentation showing macro-photographs of those specimens collected is attached as a 

separate feature to this report. 

2.4 Snorkel Observations 

Observations were made by one or two expert snorkelers equipped with drysuits, masks and 

snorkels in stream sections of reaches 1 and 2 to assess abundance and distribution of juvenile 

salmonids throughout the sample site and adjacent habitat of the stream reach. Snorkelers 

viewed in-water habitat of cascade pools, rock riffles and plunge lines of the stream channel to 

observe juvenile salmonids habitat use abundance and distribution. Numbers were recorded on 

dive tablets and summarized by stream section within the reach. Snorkeling was completed 

opportunistically as an additional project component during 2005 assessments (September 12 

and 19, 2005). Water conditions, visibility and flow were estimated and/or measured during site 

assessment, however; snorkel counts were not calibrated for variable observer and sighting 

efficiency. Photo 8 shows snorkelers in Reach 3 of Clayton Creek. 


5


Photo 7: Benthic Invertebrate collection, February 2006. 

Photo 8: Snorkel observations in Reach 3. 

Kynoch Resources


3. RESULTS 

Kynoch Resources’ observation and assessment of stream channel conditions of Clayton Creek 

between September 10, 2005 through February 26, 2006, confirmed site dimensions and physical 

habitat characteristics initially described in the Water Use Plan Consultative Committee Report (BC 

Hydro, 2003). Reach boundaries were confirmed and sites were selected for benthic invertebrate 

basket placement and fish sampling. 

On September 10, 2005, Kynoch Resources commenced field activities with preliminary site selection 

and placement of benthic invertebrate sample baskets. Field activities descried in this report included 

site visits and assessments completed between September 2005 and February, 2006, including: 

• Sept. 10 benthic invertebrate basket placement; 

• Sept 13 fish sampling; 

• September 20 supplementary snorkelling (Reach 3) 

• November 8 basket observations; 

• November 15 basket retrieval; 

• January 28 basket replacement; and, 

• February 26 secondary basket retrieval and invertebrate sampling. 

Activities completed beyond March 31 2006 will be reported under a separate 2006 report cover. 

3.1 Fish Collection Results 

Fish Collection activities at Clayton Creek were completed in Reaches 2 and 3 during field 

sampling on September 13, 2006. Ron Ptolemy of BC Ministry of Environment supplied 

equipment used by MOE for similar sampling throughout the Bella Coola Valley and owing to 

equipment and protocol familiarity, accompanied the field team as field leader for fish collection. 

3.1.1 Site Data 

Site habitat data were collected on standardized MOE site cards. Data for each site appear in 

Tables 2 and 3 below. 

Site CF1 was located in Reach 2, approximately 20 m downstream from the base of Clayton 

Falls (Figure 1). The site was approximately 112 m 2 and exhibited boulder-cascade stream 

morphology providing predominantly boulder and cobble habitat cover. Stream width was 

approximately 14 m at site CF1, with a maximum depth of 0.80 m and mean depth of 0.40 m 

observed on September 13. Maximum velocity was measured as 0.38 m/s and mean velocity 

was 0.12 m/s. 

Discharge at Site CF1 was calculated using a Swoffer velocity meter and depth and width 

measurements at nine sites across a representative stream transect. Discharge at Site CF1 

was determined to be 0.49 m3/s based on measurements made September 13, 2005. Table 2 

summarizes data for Site C1. 


6


Table 2: Sample Site Habitat Description 

Clayton Creek Reach 2 (2005) 

Stream Clayton Creek Site CF1 Reach 2 

Watershed Code 160-466100-08200-87300 Date Sept. 13-05 Crew FK/RP/HW/AJ 

Hydraulic Type Cascade MSTM or SD Chan MS Map Gradient NA 

Field gradient 4% Sample Width 7.5 m Stream Width 14.0m 

Channel Width 20.0 m Mean Depth 0.40 m Max. Depth 0.80 m 

Mean Velocity 0.12 m/s Max. Velocity 0.38 m/s Temperature 9.2 C 

Stream Stage M Turbidity/Visibility 1.5 m Time 10:54 h 

Cover Components % 

LWD Boulder In. Veg Over Veg. Cutbank 

0 5 0 0 0 

Substrate Distribution % 

Fines 

Small 

Gravel 

Large Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Sand 

0 15 10 30 40 0 5 

Substrate 

Compaction 

Comments 

M D90 50 cm Dmax 200 cm Conductivity 22.0 µS/cm 

Pink and chum salmon spawners noted at site. 

Site 15 m long x 7.5 m wide (112.5 m 2 ), Discharge 0.49 m 3 /s for 9.1 m width assessed 

Site CF2 was located in Reach 3, approximately 5 m upstream from the head pond (Figure 1). 

The site was approximately 96.2 m 2 and exhibited similar boulder boulder-cascade stream 

morphology as noted in Reach 3. Substrate and stream habitat covers were also similar to 

Reach 2, providing predominantly boulder and cobble habitat cover. Stream width was 

approximately 17m at site CF2, with a maximum depth of 1.20 m and mean depth of 0.30 m 

observed on September 13. Maximum velocity was measured as 0.77 m/s and mean velocity 

was 0.54 m/s. 

Discharge at Site CF2 was calculated from data collected at seven points across a 

representative site transect, extending approximately 6 m into the stream channel. Stream 

depth and swift velocity precluded field crew ability to collect stream discharge data across the 

entire stream channel. Discharge at Site CF2 was determined to be 1.11 m 3 /s based on 

measurements made September 13, 2006. 

Sites CF1 and CF2 both exhibited similar conductivity (22.0 µS/cm) and approximately similar 

stream temperatures (9.2°C at Site CF1 and 9.5°C at Site CF2). 


7


Table 3: Sample Site Habitat Description 

Clayton Creek Reach 3 (2005) 

Stream Clayton Creek Site CF2 Reach 3 

Watershed Code 160-466100-08200-87300 Date Sept. 13-05 Crew FK/RP/HW/AJ 

Hydraulic Type Cascade MSTM or SD Chan MS Map Gradient NA 

Field gradient 6 % Sample Width 5.23 m Stream Width 17 m 

Channel Width 24 m Mean Depth 0.30 Max. Depth 1.20 m 

Mean Velocity 0.54 m/s Max. Velocity 0.77 m/s Temperature 9.5 C 

Stream Stage M Turbidity/Visibility 1.5 m Time 14:32 h 

Cover Components % 

LWD Boulder In. Veg Over Veg. Cutbank 

0 40 0 0 0 

Substrate Distribution % 

Fines Small Gravel Large Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock Sand 

0 10 20 30 40 0 0 

Substrate 

Compaction 

Comments 

3.1.2 Fish Collection 

L D90 40 cm Dmax 120 cm Conductivity 22.0 µS/cm 

Lower site boundary approximately 8 m upstream of headpond 

Site 18.4 m long x 5.23 m wide (96.23 m2), discharge 1.11 m 3 /s for 6.1 m width assessed 

On September 13, 2005, two pass electrofishing at Site CF1 resulted in collection of 16 juvenile 

coho salmon, four juvenile Dolly Varden char, and 83 sculpin. Adult pink and chum salmon 

were observed within the site and immediately upstream and downstream of the site during the 

assessment and fish collection period. 

These catches equate to 14.2 coho salmon, 3.5 Dolly Varden and 73 sculpin collected /100m 2 

at Site CF1. Fisheries population software (Microfish v3.0, 2006) was used to calculate other 

basic information from the relatively small data set for Site CF1, as presented in Table 4. Raw 

data are presented as Appendix 1 for additional end-user interpretation. 

Species 

Total 

Catch 

Capture 

Probability 

Table 4: Fish Collection Data 1 , Site CF 1 

Site Pop. Estimate 

(95% confidence) 

Avg. 

weight (g) 

Total 

weight (g) 

Biomass 

(g/100m 2) 

Avg. 

length 

(mm) 

Condition Factor 

coho 16 0.8421 14-18 8.7 139.9 124.4 86.9 1.285 

Dolly 

Varden 

4 1.0 4 23.4 93.7 83.28 119.3 1.367 

sculpin 83 0.697 80 - 102 NA NA NA NA NA 

1- Data assessed through MicroFish 3.0 for Windows 


8


Site CF2 yielded considerably less fish during similar collection efforts as Site CF1. This was 

attributed largely to Site CF2 being upstream of Clayton Falls, which provides a natural 

upstream barrier to fish migration. Only two Dolly Varden were collected during intensive single 

pass electrofishing at Site CF2 on Septemer 13, 2005. No other fish were observed at this site 

during the fish collection period. 

Species 

Dolly 

Varden 

Total 

Catch 

Capture 

Probability 

Table 5: Fish Collection Data 1 , Site CF 2 

Site Pop. Estimate 

(95% confidence) 

Avg. 

weight (g) 

Total 

weight (g) 

Biomass 

(g/100m 2) 

Avg. 

length (mm) 

Condition 

Factor 

2 1.0 2 9.1 18.2 17.51 102.0 0.729 

1- Data assessed through MicroFish 3.0 for Windows 

Supplementary Snorkelling 

Unadjusted snorkel counts were completed on September 13 at Site CF1. A single snorkeler, 

encompassing one half of the stream unit of Reaches 2 and 1 (from the base of the waterfall to 

tide water and North Bentnick Arm, completed the count. The following numbers of fish were 

observed: 

• 64 adult pink salmon; 

• 29 juvenile coho (fry and parr); and, 

• 53 Dolly Varden (parr and sub adults). 

Two person unadjusted snorkel counts were also completed on one half of the stream unit of 

the sample site at Reach 3 on September 20, resulting in observation of one (1) Dolly Varden 

sub adult. 

3.2 Benthic Invertebrate Sampling 

Benthic invertebrate sampling in Clayton Creek presented many field and logistical difficulties, 

ultimately resulting in inadequate data collection for useful ecological monitoring. Original 

design required placement of gravel and cobble filled wire baskets (Anon., 1997), however; 

baskets available from BC Hydro were insufficient size and dimension to accommodate 

substrate of an adequate amount and size for effective invertebrate colonization in the turbulent 

water of Clayton Creek. The baskets supplied were relatively ‘flat’, measuring 30 cm x 30 cm x 

10 cm high (Photo 5), limiting large cobble inclusion and also inhibiting basket placement depth 

within the stream substrate. It was also noted stream substrate in reach 2 (below the falls) was 

typically large boulder, cobble and bedrock substrate, making it difficult to place baskets in the 

stream channel with limited substrate smaller than boulder (>256 mm) present in Reach 2, 

limiting ability to embed baskets in substrate as described in the available guidance document 

(Anon., 1997). 

During Sept 10 basket placement stream flow was relatively high (actual discharge 

undetermined; Photo 6). Subsequently, on later return to the sample site for routine monitoring 

by personnel during anticipated low water (November, 8 2005), it appeared some baskets had 

previously been, or ultimately would be de-watered. Upon consultation with BC Hydro, it was 

determined to leave the baskets in location for later retrieval. On or around November 10 

through 15, 2006 there was a significant rain-on-snow freshet event resulting in high- to 


9


floodwater levels, damaging and/or destroying half of the invertebrate baskets in each reach 

(Photo 9). This high water event also damaged a portion of the BC Hydro dam, indicating the 

severity of the water level, although actual stream discharge data were not determined as part 

of this project (Photo 10). 

Benthic Sample Collection Results (November 15, 2005) 

On November 15 those invertebrate baskets remaining in tact and that could safely be 

salvaged/collected from the stream were removed and invertebrates archived for potential 

further program use. In total, three sample baskets were collected from each site (six total); 

however, most baskets were either somewhat damaged, severely debris laden, or had been 

transported considerable distance within the stream channel (e.g., >20 m). Samples were 

collected and preserved in isopropyl alcohol for further program use where required (Photo 11). 

Observations of samples recovered indicated there were a variety of benthic invertebrates in 

the substrate recovered; however it appeared the samples had been affected by the high water 

as amount of substrate, debris and invertebrates varied greatly from sample to sample (Photos 

11 and 12). 

Benthic Sample Collection Results (February 26, 2006) 

Through consultation with BC Hydro it was determined that basket samplers would again be 

placed in the stream in mid to late January to capture late winter invertebrate productivity. 

Owing to weather and logistics, sample baskets were placed in the stream channel in similar 

location of Reaches 2 and 3 on January 26, 2006. 

BC Hydro further determined it would be beneficial to have a specialist trained in sample basket 

recovery and sampling assist Kynoch Resources with this portion of the project. On February 

26, Mr. Kiyo Masuda of Limnotek Research & Development Inc. joined Kynoch Resources to 

recover the sample baskets from Clayton Creek. During this field visit it was determined 

through Mr. Masuda’s past experience with this type of stream sampling that baskets being 

utilized at Clayton Creek were not of sufficient depth to allow appropriate invertebrate 

colonization (owing to limited substrate size, and inability to effectively submerge the flat 

sampler in the large substrate (e.g., Photos 5 and 6). Baskets of greater depth (approximately 

25-30 cm depth) were more commonly used with greater success in other streams for similar 

projects (K. Masuda, 2006 pers. com.). Field discussion and subsequent discussion with BC 

Hydro determined it would not be realistically appropriate to use data from the improper sample 

baskets for this portion of the project. 

On February 26, 2006, samples were collected and benthic invertebrates discretely separated 

from substrate using standard techniques developed by Limnotek (K. Masuda, 2006 pers. 

com.) and again archived for potential further use. 

Considering deviations from original invertebrate sample collection methods and numerous 

problems associated with sample collection, it was decided three of the six samples recovered 

from Reach 2 (February 26) were assessed by taxonomist Micheal Wigle to determine basic 

species presence, approximate life stages and relative abundance as an alternative to more 

complex assessment (i.e., that proposed during study design). Mr. Wigle has performed other 

benthic invertebrate sampling in Clayton Creek using various kick net techniques and has a 

comprehensive knowledge of what types of invertebrates would typically be present in that 

stream channel. 


10


Photo 9: High water of Reach 3 damaged sample baskets 

(November 15, 2005) 

Photo 10: Damage to BC Hydro Dam (near top of photo) showing 

hole made by debris transported during igh water in Reach 3 

(November 15, 2006). 

Kynoch Resources


Photo 11: Sample recovered November 15 from Reach 2 showing 

limited debris material and few notable invertebrate specimens 

Photo 12: Sample recovered November 15 from Reach 3 showing 

moderate amounts of debris and invertebrate specimens. 

Kynoch Resources


Invertebrate Taxonomy Results (February 26, 2006) 

Upon preliminary sample assessment by taxonomists it was determined species identification 

would be completed on all samples collected at Reach 2 (six samples, February 26, 2006). 

Owing to limited numbers of specimens collected in the sample baskets it was well within the 

scope and budget of the project to complete taxonomic identification of specimens from all six 

samples from Reach 2 (Site CF1); however, it was not considered that there was enough data 

for full taxonomic assessment (e.g., species density, life stage use, etc.). 

Aquatic invertebrates were identified to species where possible. Identification to species level 

was contingent upon the life stage of the nymph or larva. Mature larvae in their final stage(s) of 

development are typically most readily identifiable to species level. Earlier stages (instars) in 

those samples collected were identified to Genus level. In some cases (e.g., caddis, blackfly 

and Chironomid larvae), specimens were identified to Family level. Refer to the attached 

PowerPoint document for photographs of all aquatic invertebrates collected as well as a typical 

sample site. 

The three primary aquatic insect Orders Ephemeroptera, Plectoptera, Trichoptera (May, Stone 

and Caddis flies) most often associated with fish habitat utilization were represented in samples 

taken from Clayton Creek. Representatives from the Dipteran Order (i.e. Simuliids; Blackfly 

larvae and Chironomids; non-biting Midge larvae) were also recorded. 

All specimens collected were in various stages of development. The variance was due to 

emergence times of particular species. It was noted a stonefly such as Zapada cinctipes, which 

is generally in the “winter stonefly” group, would be expected to be mature in development in 

Late February, and subsequently was recorded as such in specimens sampled. Mid to late 

spring emerging insects such as the mayflies Rithrogena sp., Ironopsis grandis, Cinygmula sp. 

and Ameletus sp. were in intermediate stages of development as would be expected at the 

sample period (late February). 

The presence of such species as Cinygmula sp., Ironopsis grandis and Rithrogena sp., 

mayflies as well as stonefly specimens typically indicates good water quality, since these 

aquatic invertebrates are often the first to disappear when such stressors as high water temp., 

low oxygen and toxins are present. 

Generally the composition and diversity of specimens observed from the Clayton Creek 

samples indicated a relatively diverse benthic invertebrate population; however, quantitative 

data could not be assessed or inferred from samples collected. 

Collection methods were problematic for invertebrate collection in Clayton Creek. The planted 

baskets were undersized and limited sample substrate size. This may have limited colonization 

(in terms of species diversity and numbers) within the basket for aquatic invertebrates as the 

substrate in this stream reach is comprised predominantly of cobble and boulder, which is much 

more stable as refuge when compared to the planted baskets. 


11


Table 6 provides a list of benthic invertebrate taxa observed, including life stages. 

Table 6: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in Samples from Clayton Creek, 

February 26, 2006, including life stages. 

Common Name Order Family Genus Species Life Stage 

Mayfly Ephemeroptera 

Stonefly Plecoptera 

- Cinygmula sp. larva 

- Ironopsis grandis nymph 

- Rithrogena sp. nymph 

- Baetis bicaudatus nymph 

- Ameletus sp. nymph 

- Zapada cinctipes nymph 

- Podmosta sp. nymph 

- Prostoia besametsa nymph 

- Taenionema sp. nymph 

Caddisfly Trichoptera - Dicosmoecus sp. larva 

midge Diptera Chironomidae - sp. larva 

blackfly Simuliidae Simuliidae - sp. larva 


12


4. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is beyond the scope of this Data Report to draw conclusions and discuss sample results in detail. 

Subsequent years of the sample project have allotted resources for such discussions. However, 

observations of methods and project recommendations can be made at this time to help shape further 

data collection and interpretation. 

4.1 Fish Habitat 

Fish habitat observations and fish collection activities from 2005 indicated a relatively limited 

habitat diversity in samples areas of Clayton Creek (e.g., Sites CF 1 and CF 2). Habitat of 

Reach 2 was typically boulder-cascade morphology, typical of coastal streams of this gradient, 

offering limited rearing and holding habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. 

4.2 Invertebrate Sampling 

Benthic invertebrate sampling resulted in compilation of a basic index of invertebrate 

specimens present in winter months in Clayton Creek. It became apparent that it was beyond 

the scope of sample methods to collect quantifiable invertebrate data from Clayton Creek 

during observed (2005-2006) winter flow regimes. From limited samples available it appeared a 

relatively diverse number of invertebrate taxa were present in Clayton Creek, represented in a 

variety of life cycles, which indicated organism diversity and condition expected of a typical 

coastal stream for winter sampling periods. 

It is anticipated winter discharge during the 2005-2006 sample season was on average much 

higher than the theoretical 0.05 m 3 /s to 0.1 m 3 /s described during study design. Owing to 

difficulties associated with flood conditions observed during placement and retrieval of 

invertebrate samplers it is likely not feasible to assess benthic invertebrates as a measure of 

ecological condition within the scope of the project as described in the Terms of Reference (BC 

Hydro, 2005). 

4.3 Recommendations 

Based on observations and lessons learned during the 2005 sample period (September 2005- 

February 2006) it appears there will be considerable difficulty in determining overall ecological 

effect of the 0.05 m 3 /s increase in through-dam flow resulting from BC Hydro’s increased water 

release. During this assessment flow regimes of Reach 2 of Clayton Creek appeared to be 

higher than theoretically considered during study design (BC Hydro, 2003) as continual spilling 

over the dam occurs on a regular basis at Clayton Falls. Although not measured, observed 

discharge during winter months often appeared >0.50 m 3 /s during field visits or assessment 

(e.g., based on field comparison to measured stream discharge assessed on September 13 

2005 [0.49 m 3 /s], which was a partial stream discharge assessing approximately 70% of stream 

surface/volume)), confounding ability to determine effects of an additional 0.05 m 3 /s. Full 

stream discharge measurements were not feasible at Reach 2 of Clayton Creek owing to safety 

in the stream channel. 

Much of the observed water discharge from Reach 3 to Reach 2 appeared to be coming from 

dam leakage, or natural flow around the dam structure. It is recommended BC Hydro undertake 


13


an effective water discharge monitoring program to determine overall discharge from Clayton 

Falls dam to sections of Reach 2 (excluding water usage for power generation). 

It is further recommended that this project focus on water discharge data collection on a 

periodic basis (as determined by field and environmental conditions) to assess stream levels 

and discharge on a regular basis in Reach 2. Kynoch Resources personnel could assess water 

levels opportunistically during observed low-flow or low-water winter conditions for the 

remaining three years of the project (2006 through 2008). These discharge data could 

subsequently be compared to available precipitation/climate data as well as BC Hydro water 

withdraw data to better determine overall water resources available for Reach 2. 


14


LITERATURE SOURCES 

Anon 1997. 

Freshwater biological sampling manual. Published by the British Columbia Resource Information 

Committee. Available online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/aquatic/index.htm. 

BC Hydro, 2003. 

Clayton Falls Water Use Plan. Consultative Committee Report. Prepared on behalf of the Consultative 

Committee for the Clayton Falls Water Use Plan. July. 

BC Hydro, 2005. 

Terms of Reference for the Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program: Aquatic 

Productivity. May. 

BC Government, 1998. 

Water Use Plan Guidelines. Prepared by Province of British Columbia. December. 

Masuda, K., 2006 (pers. com.) 

Personal Communication, February 26. Site participant during invertebrate collection, Clayton Creek, 

Bella Coola. 

Ptolemy, R.A., M. Ramsay, D. Peard and D. Sollitt, 2006 (Draft). 

Results of Steelhead Stock Monitoring (1988-2006) in the Bella Coola River and Implications for 

Population Recovery. Prepared for: Ministry of Environment and Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. 

Ptolemy, R.A. 2005 (pers. com.) 

Personal Communication, September 13. Site participation during fish collection and sampling at 

Clayton Creek, Bella Coola, as part of 2005 field project. 


15

Appendix 1 

Fish Collection Data

Clayton Falls Creek Fish Collection Sept. 13, 2005. 

Reach Removal Species Length (mm) Weight (g) 

2 1 CO 69 4.57 

2 1 CO 71 3.9 

2 1 CO 85 7.16 

2 1 CO 85 6.96 

2 1 CO 85 8.53 

2 1 CO 86 7.25 

2 1 CO 87 7.9 

2 1 CO 91 8.99 

2 1 CO 91 8.88 

2 1 CO 93 10.03 

2 1 CO 94 13.15 

2 1 CO 99 10.52 

2 1 CO 110 17.03 

2 1 DV 113 18.95 

2 1 DV 117 21.89 

2 1 DV 121 22.74 

2 1 DV 126 30.09 

2 2 CO 68 4.83 

2 2 CO 84 8.87 

2 2 CO 92 11.37 

3 1 DV 91 3.09 

3 1 DV 113 15.3 

3 2 NA NA NA no fish collected

Clayton Falls Project Water Use Plan Aquatic - BC Hydro

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?